Conley v. Barton, 193

Citation67 L.Ed. 456,43 S.Ct. 238,260 U.S. 677
Decision Date29 January 1923
Docket NumberNo. 193,193
PartiesCONLEY v. BARTON
CourtUnited States Supreme Court

Messrs.

Harry A. Hegarty and James B. Flynn, both of Washington, D. C., for plaintiff in error.

Mr. Frank H. Haskell, of Portland, Me., for defendant in error.

Mr. Justice McKENNA delivered the opinion of the Court.

Suit to redeem a mortgage which was executed by defendant in error to one George W. Towle to secure his promissory note for the payment to Towle of the sum of $2,000 and interest. The note and mortgage were dated October 14, 1905.

On February 20, 1919, a breach of the mortgage was committed and the holder of it, under the laws of the state, foreclosed it by taking possession of the mortgaged premises and duly recorded a certificate of the fact in the registry of deeds of the proper county.

The bill as originally drawn was based upon an alleged effort to redeem the mortgaged premises by payment of the amount due upon the note and mortgage before the time of redemption expired, in which effort plaintiff alleges he failed by the absence of Conley from his residence and place of business.

Plaintiff (defendant in error), however, amended his bill to read as follows:

'The plaintiff further alleges that more than three months have elapsed since the expiration of one year from the time when the legal representatives of the mortgagee of the mortgage described in the plaintiff's bill took possession of the mortgaged property for the purpose of foreclosing said mortgage, but neither the mortgagee nor the holder of record of said mortgage, nor the legal representative or legal representatives, of either the mortgagee or holder of record of said mortgage nor any other person, has signed and sworn to an affidavit as required in cases of foreclosure of mortgages of real estate by section 4 of chapter 95 of the Revised Statutes of Maine as amended by chapter 192 of the Public Laws of A. D. 1917, and no such affidavit has been recorded in the registry of deeds where the certificate of said foreclosure is recorded, as required by said statute, and these facts were not known to the plaintiff at the time of filing his said bill as said three months had not elapsed at the time of filing said bill.'

Plaintiff in error, answering the amendment, alleges that chapter 192 of the Public Laws of 1917 'has no application and no relevancy to the plaintiff's (plaintiff in error's) rights or cause of action herein,' and that if it be claimed that such chapter grants any additional time beyond the one year as covenanted in the mortgage deed, the act 'would be contrary to the provisions of section 10 [article 1] of the Constitution of the United States and to the covenant of the mortgage deed itself and, therefore, void and of no effect.' An estoppel was also pleaded.

The mortgage contained a provision by which the mortgagor covenanted with the mortgagee that the right to redeem the mortgaged premises should be forever foreclosed in one year next after the commencement of foreclosure by any of the methods then provided by law, and one of the methods provided was entry into possession of the mortgaged premises and holding the same by consent in writing of the mortgagor, or the person holding under him.

It is, however, provided by chapter 192 of the Public Laws of 1917, that possession so obtained (or by any other of the three modes provided) 'and continued for one year' will 'forever foreclose the right of redemption,' provided, however, 'that an affidavit signed and sworn to by the mortgagee or by the holder of record of the mortgage, or their legal representatives, is, written three months after the expiration of one year from the taking of such possession, recorded in the registry of deeds where the certificate of foreclosure is recorded. * * *' Section 1.

On February 20, 1919, a breach of the mortgage having been committed, the holder of the mortgage assigned it to the plaintiff in error, Conley, but two years before that time the act providing for the filing of the affidavit as above stated was passed, and its effect is the principal controversy in this case. Defendant in error urges it to sustain his right to redemption; plaintiff in error asserts that it is inapplicable, and contends that if held applicable, it is invalid as impairing the obligation of his contract, the mortgage.

The trial court decided that the provision as...

To continue reading

Request your trial
29 cases
  • Woodbine Sav. Bank of Woodbine v. Shriver
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • April 10, 1931
    ...a change thereof would amount to an impairment. Barnitz v. Beverly, 163 U. S. 118, 16 S. Ct. 1042, 41 L. Ed. 93;Conley v. Barton, 260 U. S. 677, 43 S. Ct. 238, 67 L. Ed. 456. [2] Obviously in the case at bar, however, we are not confronted with a case where the remedy became a part of the c......
  • Des Moines Joint Stock Land Bank of Des Moines v. Nordholm, 42076.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • April 4, 1934
    ...24 L. R. A. 284, 40 Am. St. Rep. 870;Oshkosh Water Works v. Oshkosh, 187 U. S. 437, 23 S. Ct. 234, 47 L. Ed. 249;Conley v. Barton, 260 U. S. 677, 43 S. Ct. 238, 67 L. Ed. 456; American & Eng. Enc. of Law (2d Ed.) vol. 15, 1056; Hollister v. Donahoe, 11 S. D. 497, 78 N. W. 959;Bradley v. Lig......
  • Sveen v. Melin
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • June 11, 2018
    ...Court explained, "all he ha[d] to do [was] to say so in writing." Id., at 406, 3 S.Ct. 304. And one last: In Conley v. Barton, 260 U.S. 677, 43 S.Ct. 238, 67 L.Ed. 456 (1923), the Court held that the Contracts Clause did not bar a State from compelling existing mortgagees to complete affida......
  • Des Moines Joint Stock Land Bank v. Nordholm
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • April 4, 1934
    ......Crawford, 160 Iowa 432, 141 N.W. 1041;. City of Des Moines v. Manhattan Oil Co., 193 Iowa. 1096, 184 N.W. 823, 188 N.W. 921; Grand Trunk Western R. Co. v. South Bend, 227 U.S. 544, ...497; Oshkosh Water Works v. Oshkosh, 187 U.S. 437, 23 S.Ct. 234, 47 L.Ed. 249;. Conley v. Barton, 260 U.S. 677, 43 S.Ct. 238, 67. L.Ed. 456; American & Eng. Enc. of Law (2d Ed.) vol. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT